Standard & Poor’s managing director for Australia and New Zealand John Bailey said, “We are supportive of regulations that strengthen transparency and oversight and improve market confidence. There is, however, a need for international consistency in regulatory oversight because ratings are issued and used globally.
“In terms of the requirements for a retail licence, we are concerned that membership of a local EDR scheme would interfere with the analytical independence of our rating opinions and undermine the global consistency and comparability of ratings.
“This scheme could change the substance of a rating and result in the creation of dual credit ratings – an Australian “EDR”domestic credit rating and a “rest of the world”credit rating. Because the local ombudsman would effectively be second guessing S&P’s analysts, we believe this would ultimately create investor confusion and harm financial markets.

A reminder that it’s not just the substance of the rules that matters, but also how those rules are to be enforced. Meanwhile, the EU Commission announced that had issued a statement of objections with respect to S&P’s practice of charging for the use of ISINs by EEA firms, arguing that it was in breach of Art. 82 (abuse of a dominant position).